Posted by: adbhutam | February 10, 2015

DOUBLE STANDARDS OF SOME ‘VAISHNAVAS’

Double standards of some ‘Vaishnavas’

In the following blog some indecent remarks about the Kanchi Paramāchārya are found for which responses are given by me:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2015/02/we-have-noticed-that-our-poor-comrade.html?showComment=1423448891609#c8415987628478026768

// Vishnu, who is considered as symbolising Satvaguna, has, on occasions, taken upon Him self Tamoguna, standing for destruction, as His Avataar as Narasimhaa. In the Rama Avataara, when He fought Khara Dooshana, Kumbha Karna and Ravana, and also when he threatened to dry up the ocean, He assumed Tamoguna. //

Response:

In the Vishnusahasranama bhashyam Shankara says for the name ‘bhūtakṛt’ (5th name), तमोगुणमास्थाय स रुद्रात्मना भूतानि कृन्तति कृणोति हिनस्तीति भूतकृत् [(Viśṇu) as Rudra, assuming Tamoguṇa, destroys all beings. Hence He is called ‘bhūtakṛt’.]
Shankara does not speak of a ‘separate’ Shiva/Rudra here; he makes it clear that the Vishnu about whom he is commenting in the VS, is assuming tamoguṇa to destroy the world. The word kṛntati, hinasti, show the cruelty involved in the act of killing/destroying. None can wish away these natural emotions manifesting when one engages in slaying the opponent.
There is nothing wrong in saying that Vishnu/Rama/Krishna assumed tamo guṇa while destroying asuras/the world. In fact the BG 11th chapter records, in Krishna/Vedavyāsa’s own words that ‘it is ghora rūpa’ with which the lokakṣaya kāryam is done. Arjuna, not able to stand the ghora rūpam pleaded Krishna to end that show and resume his normal form.
As an aside, how can one claim, in the face of such evidences, that only Vishnu is fit for upasana and not Rudra or Brahma for only the latter are ‘tamo-rajas’ upādhis and not Vishnu who is only shuddha sattva upādhi- as these bloggers have claimed? While Shankara nowhere says that Rudra and Brahma are tama/rajas upādhis, but only Vishnu assumes those gunas as Rudra and Brahma, the bloggers stealthily hide this fact and portray in their blogs that Shankara says that Rudra and Brahma are tamo/rajas upadhis. One who is capable of reading the original VS bhashyam of Shankara can easily see how these bloggers make false claims to hoodwink their gullible readers who do not realize that the bloggers offer only misinformation about everything.
In the Narasimha Avatara too the Bhagavatam records that all devatas, including Lakshmi, stayed away from the Lord after the slaying of Hiranyakashipu, out of fear.
These two verses are from the 7th canto, 9th chapter of the Bhagavatam:
śrī-nārada uvāca
evaḿ surādayaḥ sarve
brahma-rudra-puraḥ sarāḥ
nopaitum aśakan manyu-
saḿrambhaḿ sudurāsadam
SYNONYMS
śrī-nārada uvāca — the great saintly sage Nārada Muni said; evam — thus; sura-ādayaḥ — the groups of demigods; sarve — all; brahma-rudra-puraḥ sarāḥ — represented by Lord Brahmā and Lord Śiva; na — not; upaitum — to go before the Lord; aśakan — able; manyu-saḿrambham — in a completely angry mood; su-durāsadam — very difficult to approach (Lord Nṛsiḿhadeva).
The Bhagavatam uses a very strong expression to convey how anger ruled the roost then.
prahrādaḿ preṣayām āsa
brahmāvasthitam antike
tāta praśamayopehi
sva-pitre kupitaḿ prabhum
SYNONYMS
prahrādam — Prahlāda Mahārāja; preṣayām āsa — requested; brahmā — Lord Brahmā; avasthitam — being situated; antike — very near; tāta — my dear son; praśamaya — just try to appease; upehi — go near; sva-pitre — because of your father’s demoniac activities; kupitam — greatly angered; prabhum — the Lord.
The Red highlighted words show that Narasimha was given to extreme anger and was fierce, unapproachable.
Now, here are a few samples of Rama giving in to anger in combat with Khara:
Valmiki Ramayana:
स शरैरर्दितः क्रुद्धस्सर्वगात्रेषु राघवः।

रराज समरे रामो विधूमोऽग्निरिव ज्वलन्।।3.28.19।।
Translation

शरैः with darts, सर्वगात्रेषु in all limbs, अर्दितः afflicted, राघवः a scion of Raghu race, सः रामः that Rama, क्रुद्धः angry, विधूमः without smoke, ज्वलन् while burning, अग्निरिव like fire, समरे in fight, रराज glowed.

Rama, scion of the Raghu race, afflicted by the darts in all parts of the body, glowed in his anger like smokeless fire burning.
ततः कनकपुङ्खैस्तु शरैस्सन्नतपर्वभिः।

बिभेद रामस्सङ्क्रुद्धः खरस्य समरे ध्वजम्।।3.28.22।।
Translation

ततः then, रामः Rama, सङ्क्रुद्धः enraged, कनकपुङ्खैः with golden feathers, सन्नतपर्वभिः welljointed and smooth, शरैः darts, समरे in war, खरस्य of Khara, ध्वजम् flag on the chariot, बिभेद broken to pieces.

Rama took up in a rage the well jointed, smooth darts with golden feathers and broke the flag post of the chariot of Khara to pieces.

Reports the blogger the Kanchi Paramacharya’s words:
// Through Visnu he sustains them and through Rudra he destroys them. Later Brahma, Visnu, Rudra are themselves destroyed by him. //

Note the careful use of “Rudra” here and not “Siva”, thus subscribing to the Sadasiva-turIya-vAda (i.e., claiming that the popular “Siva” is different from “Rudra” and above the trinity of “Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra”) propounded by Appayya in his anti-Vishnu works and having no basis in the shAstra or Shankara’s works.//
Response:
The blogger is ignorant about innumerable evidences in the Mahabharata and other puranas about the Turiya Shiva. I am giving just a few from a very huge, unmanageable, sample:
Mahabharata Anushasanika parva, Ch.45. Here Krishna says about Shiva that from Shiva have Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra have emerged. I have not given the translation of each verse:
योऽसृजद्दक्षिणादङ्गाद्ब्रह्माणं लोकसम्भवम् |
वामपार्श्वात्तथा विष्णुं लोकरक्षार्थमीश्वरः ||१८३||

युगान्ते चैव सम्प्राप्ते रुद्रमङ्गात्सृजत्प्रभुः ||१८३||

स रुद्रः संहरन्कृत्स्नं जगत्स्थावरजङ्गमम् |
कालो भूत्वा महातेजाः संवर्तक इवानलः ||१८४||

एष देवो महादेवो जगत्सृष्ट्वा चराचरम् |
कल्पान्ते चैव सर्वेषां स्मृतिमाक्षिप्य तिष्ठति ||१८५||

सर्वगः सर्वभूतात्मा सर्वभूतभवोद्भवः |
आस्ते सर्वगतो नित्यमदृश्यः सर्वदैवतैः ||१८६||

From the Adityapurana: Aditya says to Manu:

आत्मभूतान्महादेवाल्लीलाविग्रहधारिणः ।
आदिसर्गे समुद्भूता ब्रह्मविष्णुसुरोत्तमाः ॥
तमेकं परमात्मानमादिकारणमीश्वरम् ।
प्राहुर्बहुविधं तत्त्वमिन्द्रम्मित्रमिति श्रुतिः ॥
न तस्मादधिकं कश्चिन्न ज्यायान्न समः कुतः ।
तेनेदमखिलं पूर्णं शंकरेण महात्मना ।

आदिसर्गे महादेवो ब्रह्माणमसृजद्विभुः

(The idea conveyed by the above cited MB verses is contained in the Adityapurana too. The underlined part is the alluding to the famous Rg. vedic passage: indram mitram varunam…. Ekam sat viprāh bahudhā vadanti as the pramana for the concept of One Paramatma having various forms.)

In the Padmapurana, Shiva tells Rama:

Here is just the gist of the few verses: From the right side Shiva created Brahmā and from the left, Hari. From the heart region Shiva created Mahesha. These three sons he created. Just upon being born the three asked ‘Clearly let us know who You are and who we are?’ Shiva replied: ‘You are my sons and I am your father.’ तानाह च शिवः पुर्त्रान् यूयं पुत्रा अहं पिता.

[The bloggers propagate the idea that Rudra is born of Brahma and Brahma is Vishnu’s son]

In the Shaivapurana, Vāyavīyasamhitā, Dadhīchi says to Dakṣa:

ब्रह्मविष्णुमहेशानां स्रष्टा यः प्रभुरव्ययः

The ‘ṛight side left side’ creation by shiva of brahma and vishnu is contained in several purans. In the shaiva, the section cited ends with this line: संसारमोचको देवः पश्यन्नन्य इति श्रुतिः । [It is alluding to a shruti passage which contains the word ‘paśyannanyaḥ’ as pramana for the concept]

The skanda purana: Nandikeshvara addresses Sanatkumara about the same concept.

सृजते सकलं देव ग्रससीश पुनः पुनः

ब्रह्मविष्णुसुराः सर्वे स्थावराणि चराणि च

Shiva purana, vñavīyasamhitā:

यस्मात्सर्वमिदं ब्रह्मविष्णुरुद्रेन्द्रपूर्वकम् ॥ 2ab
सह भूतेन्द्रियैः सर्वैः प्रथमं संप्रसूयते ॥ 2cd
कारणानां च यो धाता ध्याता परमकारणम् ॥ 3ab
न संप्रसूयते ऽन्यस्मात्कुतश्चन कदाचन ॥ 3cd

There itself in the 8th chapter:

ततस्तेभ्यो विकारेभ्यः रुद्रविष्णुपितामहाः

Padmapurana:

यं वातमाहुर्यं रुद्रं शाश्वतं परमेश्वरम्
परात्परतरञ्चाहुः परात्परतरं शिवम्
ब्रहमणो जनकं विष्णोर्वह्नेर्वायोः सदाशिवम्

The shruti pramana for the concept of One Para Shiva being the cause of the Brahma Vishnu and Rudra is:

सोमः पवते जनिता मतीनां जनिता दिवो जनिता पृथिव्याः …जनितोत विष्णोः .

The alluding, rephrasing, of the above shruti, called ‘upabṛhmaṇam’ is found in several puranas, and the most direct one is:

Sanatkumara samhita where Vishnu tells Prabhakara:

मतीनाञ्च दिवः पृथ्व्या वह्नेः सूर्यस्य वज्रिणः ।
साक्षादपि च विष्णोश्च सोमो जनयितेश्वरः ॥

Brahmandapurana:

द्यावापृथिव्योरिन्द्राग्नेभ्यो विष्णोर्धातुर्यमस्य च ।
वरुणस्य शशांकस्य जनिता परमेश्वरः ॥

Kurmapurana, skandapurana too give out this concept. In the latter it is said that even the three consorts of the three murtis are born of the Supreme Shiva:

Brahma tells Vasishtha:

आत्मशक्त्या ससर्जाथ कन्यात्रयमनिन्दितम्

Skandapurana:

अजायां जज्ञिरे पुत्राश्चिदानन्दात् सदाशिवात्
त्रयस्त्रेताग्निसंकाशा एकपञ्चचतुर्मुखाः
सृष्टिस्थितिविनाशानां कर्तारः कार्यकोविदाः
ब्रह्मा विष्णुश्च रुद्रश्च मात्रास्तिस्रः प्रकीर्तिताः

Here, by eka, pancha and chatuḥ, Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma are indicated.

In the Brahmandapurana, Brahma says to Bhṛgu:

He says: Shiva created me from his right side and created Vishnu from his left and instructed us both to engage in creation and sustenance. At the time of dissolution, he, out of his own amsha, will be instructed in that act.

Ishānasamhitā too contains this concept. There is a shruti passage too cited:

त्रिणेत्रं त्रिगुणाधारं त्रयाणां जनकं विभुम् ।
स्मरन्नमस्शिवायेति ललटे तु त्रिपुण्ड्रकम् ॥

[The above have been cited in very great detail in the book ‘Vedantanāmaratna sahasram’ authored by Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati, the guru of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati. This book is a compilation of 1000 names from the shruti. In support of those names, as far as possible, the author has cited references from Itihasa and puranas. That list contains names such as Vishnu, Vasudeva and Narayana, and shown as names of Brahman, with references from shruti/smrti none of them are about a vaikuntha vāsin, lakshmipati, etc. just the same way they are found in the Shankara’s bhashyas. The book is available for download in DLI.]

What I have shown above is with reference to the upanishadic/vedic name त्रयाणां जनकः {The progenitor of the ‘three’} for which alone the author has given copious references from the Mahabharata onwards.

Those who might not like the above depiction will come up with flimsy, weak, fanatical, and the present day fashionable, objections such as ‘these are from tamasa puranas and therefore not to be taken as pramana. Or, the references in the Mahabharata are interpolations.’ Advaitins do not care for such objections for they have no axe to grind. Advaitins transcend such petty affiliations. For them both Shiva and Vishnu are non-different and the Trimurtis are manifestations of the Same Supreme Brahman. Shankaracharya has in the Vishnusahasra nama bhashyam eminently established these ideas while commenting on the names ‘bhūtakṛt’, ‘rudra’ and ‘Shiva’ and more. He has cited from the Shivapurana, and the bhavishyottara puranas too in support of these ideas. The bloggers’ misinformation on the status of Rudra and Brahma are demolished by the above references from the shruti and smrti.

Here is another statement of the blogger on the Kanchi Paramacharya:

//As for anti-Vaishnavism, his campaign against Srivaishnavism is all too well-known. See how he has denigrated Sri Ramanuja and Srivaishnavas in general by distorting the incident recorded in Guruparampara://
Response:
Whatever that story might be, the fact remains that Ramanuja’s and his followers’ campaign against Advaitins/smartas is all too well-known. The world knows that Ramanuja has indulged in badmouthing and name-calling of Shankaracharya (and Sureshvara and Sarvajnatman) in his Sribhashya. The blogger, when confronted by this, has cheekily replied that ‘such utterances should not be taken seriously and are quite common’. But when the Kanchi Acharya has made any references, the blogger is unable to stomach it and comes out with lengthy accusations. What double standards!! Also, the blogger, following Ramanuja indulges in open subtle criticism of Shankara:
http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/2012/01/saguna-brahman-and-krama-mukti-in_51.html
// He then makes a major objection to Sri Ramanuja’s statement that those who do not interpret the Upanishads correctly as “anādipāpavāsanādūṣitāśeṣaśemuṣīka”.

Let us answer this, since neutral readers can be led astray by such remarks. An advaitin may make the same remark about a dvaitin or a Vishistadvain, and a Vishistadvain may make the same remark about a dvaitin (and in fact, this is the case, when we see the works of Sri Doddacharya etc.). No sincere scholar would take great exception to such remarks like subbu does.

The reasoning is simple. Wrong interpretation is due to pramAda (carelessness) and ignorance (aj~nAna), and can only be a product of tamoguNa. However small it might be, in comparison with avaidikas, for an incorrect interpreter of the shAstra, it is still tamoguNa only and can only be the result of deeds opposed to puNya in anAdi-samsAra.

Hence, an AcArya belonging to one darshana cannot sincerely think that an AcArya of another darshana is unaffected by ignorance etc. And this is pointed out in the bhAShyas to emphasize a certain point. Such remarks can never be taken as character assassination.//
Response:
The blogger, who has drawn the support of Shankara and other advaitins for selling his ‘vishnu-supreme’ product, shamelessly charges Shankara, without naming him, endorsing Ramanuja’s name-calling Shankara as a sinner, says Shankara is endowed with Tamoguna and pāpavāsana. What authority, face, has he to question the remarks of the Kanchi Paramacharya about Ramanuja and vaishnavites? He can indulge in smārta-bashing to any extent but no smārta should say a word about him or his acharya or his faith!! Such is his double-standard that an innocent reader of his blogs will fail to take note of.
He indulges in name-calling of Shiva as ‘sinful Rudra’, ‘Rudra’s blemishes’, ‘Rudra is tamoguna upadhi’, etc. in his blogs. All of these have been pounded to dust by the citations provided above. He cannot tolerate a shruti-smriti-based remark of the Paramacharya about Vishnu!! He thinks Ramanuja’s vulgar words against Shankara, etc. is not any character assassination but the Kanchi Paramacharya’s remark is objectionable to him!!
The blogger cites the words of the Kanchi Paramacharya:
//After the advent of Ramanujacharyar, things changed. He preached that Vishnu is the only God and that his followers should not go to the Siva Temples!
…………//
Response:
There is nothing wrong in what the Paramacharya is reported to have said. When Shankara never preached fanatical following, Ramanuja alone sowed the seeds to divide the āstika community. This is very well known. If Ramanuja had believed, like the bloggers, that Shankara was a Vaishnava, why would he start a new following on the ways of a cult? The bloggers do not like that word but what they are indulging is nothing other than that.
Who can forget Ramanuja’s well-known Shiva-dvesham? He refused to even enter a wayside Shiva temple on the grounds of ‘losing his chaste bhakti to vishnu’!! When I pointed out the shameful episode to the blogger, he came out in a long defence of the episode saying that it is not shiva dvesha but the shiva temple is full of tamasic vibrations!! And the bloggers do not have anything to say about the present-day srivaishnavite scholars and jeers asking for a curtain to be drawn on the shiva shrine whenever they have to give a discourse in a venue. This is not shiva dvesham for them but the words of the Kanchi Acharya is Vishnu dvesham!!.
The Kanchi Paramacharya had the largest ever āstika following from all sampradayas. He had admirers from every sampradaya and even from other religions. His untiring work in preserving and propagating veda is remembered by thousands of vedic scholars from all the sampradayas with gratitude. Purely on fanatical grounds the bloggers accuse the Paramacharya without any basis. They do not know that they are working against their own cherished goal of ‘Vishnu supremacy and vaishnava supremacy’. If Shankara was a Vaishnava, according to the bloggers, why would he be plagued by tamo guna and pāpa vasana? How has vaishnavism helped in producing a sin/tamas-free Acharya? How can there be a vaishnava who is a tāmasa and a pāpi? Their own words have proved that being a vaishnava has no advantage over being a shaiva or a shākta. If Ramanuja can accuse Shankara whom advaitins regard as Shiva’s incarnation, the Shiva-dvesha of Ramanuja is patent. Is that not a result of pāpa vāsana and tamo guna? If the blogger has the audacity to say that Shankara is a victim of tamoguna and pāpa vāsana anādi samsāra, is not the blogger himself indulging in Shiva, Shankara, dvesha exhibiting his own tamo guna and pāpa vāsana? The bloggers have proved that there is no special advantage in being a vaishnava. Let them leave the other faiths alone.
Neutral readers will easily see the hypocrisy in their blogs. Fundamentalism, crookedness, guile, are all there to see for an intelligent reader of their blogs. Their projecting Shankara as a vaishnava and engaging in subtle censure of that very Shankara whose support sustains their blogs is just one example of their bigotry. No intelligent reader will consider their blogs informative or sincere. For them all advaitins after the 15CE are corrupt. The reasons:
• They don bhasma on their forehead
• They bear the name Chandrashekhara or Mahadeva or Ganapati or Subrahmanya
• They subscribe to Hari-Hara abheda and Trimurti aikya concepts
• They devote themselves to the smarta maṭhas
The famous advaitins in their blacklist are Vidyaranya and Appayya Dikshita and Nilakantha who commented on the Shiva sahasra nama. Their bigotry dictates to them that no deity except Vishnu deserves a sahasra nama. Maybe they will concede it to Lakshmi. So all other sahasra namas are interpolations and concoctions. A smriti that has these and praises of Shiva or any other are tāmasa. They hoped the Andhra Bharatam to save them but it was laid open that it contains immense Shiva stuti. They had accorded to it a position of a ‘strong’ evidence, among six, to promote their ‘shiva sahasra nama is an interpolation in the MB’ theory. When they saw the true color of the Andhra Bharatam they scaled down the status they first accorded to it to a weak ‘only a supporting, unimportant’ one. They thought no one would notice the scaling down. They had called the triad of authors of that Telugu work ‘poets’. When the Kshemendra’s Bharatamanjari of the 11th century was shown to contain the Shiva sahasranama, which is there in all the editions, southern, the critical, Madhva, etc. they downplayed it as a mere ‘poet’s work’. The purely ‘kavi’ work of the Andhra Bharatam was once acceptable to them. Now the same parameter of a kavi is suddenly unreliable when it came to the Bharatamanjari. They added other flimsy reasons such as ‘it has not even a critical edition, it had not many manuscripts and one was just a paper one, Kshemendra was not well known’ etc. All these are blasted when they realize that a critical edition is not warranted in the face of there being no multiple conflicting versions. The reason for a paper manuscript is not far to seek: the person who gave it to the collector might have really had the palm-leaf manuscript but would have preferred to not part with it. Hence the paper mode. Kshemendra as a person with all his works came to light only in the 1870’s. So the question of his not being a well known author does not arise at all. But after the discovery there has been only great honor for his works in scholarly circles. All this circus they engage is only to wriggle out of the imminent danger of disproving their mentor, the author of that vile book: sankararum vaiṇavamum.
What I have said above is not at all out of any hatred for this or that deity or community. For an advaitin, as Appayya Dikshita said, both Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same. In fact, in the ultimate state, no deity remains. That is what the Kanchi Acharya demonstrated by the lantern example which the bloggers find objectionable. If their readers are sufficiently informed about their motives the purpose of this article stands served.

Om Tat Sat


Responses

  1. Sir,
    Did you read their funny commentary on Sri Rudram?

    • No, Arun, I know how it could be.

  2. In Deivathin Kural, Kanchi Paramacharya says that Vaishnava Acharyas quote selected verses from Upanishads out of context and twist ,turn and mangle the Mahavakyas to put forth their theory. He adds that VA which sees jiva as a portion of the Supreme can be applied to other deities in Shanmatha Sampradaya apart from Vishnu.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: